Philosophical Novels

[speed]

It seems most persons in the world today, derive their philosophical knowledge and understanding from philosophical novels (or those terrifically terrible demogogic books from O'Reilly's, Frankens, and COulter's--you know them, those thin fact-less diatribes from these vacuous ideologues, who inpart a way of thinking upon their devotees). They read their Rand's, Sartres', Camus'; they ponder Mann, Dreiser and Dostoevsky; and they're spiritually enraptured by Paulo Coelho, Faulkner, or whatever author Oprah has them read. They derive their understanding of existentialism, freudianism, objectivism, and of course, the most pervasive-- social liberalism (in the left wing sense)--from these novels. They identify with some of the characters and symbolism, intepret the plot as being similar to their own society and their own troubles, rethink their own lives, and then inform their friends of their discovery.

Could there be anything more desructive to literature and philosophy? Is this not the height of philistinism?

I am sure it is. Most of said authors I listed, wrote incredibly bad and substandard literature (the laughable plots and structures of Sarte, the pretentious Mann, the ridiculously bad and simplistic Rand, the ham-handed mysticism of Coelho, I could go on.), and besides Sartre, Camus and Dostoevsky, terribly simplistic philosophy as well. Hence, one can see the problem: Literature when great, is a creative act of style, imagination, enchantment, trickery, and poetic prose, and has no real "deeper meaning" other than sharing ones personal creative universe with the rest of the world. Philosophy when great and influential, is a ponderous business that cannot be reduced to commonplace plots, stick thin characterization, and simple thinking; it must be reasoned with, debated, re-read and re-considered; in a word, it must be somewhat hard and esoteric.

Thus we have a problem. And I think this problem has led many philosophers to wholly accept a turgid pointless academic prose, that shares no similarities to the poetics and beauty, yet difficulty of Plato, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and so forth. And on the literature side, writers who wish to write "serious" literature, now focus on the "philosophical message" they wish to inpart, and wholly forget the creative beauty that has no real objective, that makes for great literature.

What is to be done?

Realize the differences. Do not accept the nonsense your Lit prof might be feeding you about literature is supposed to change ones life or have some real universal meaning; and reject the needlessly obscure academic prose your philosophy prof utilizes to proclaim that he is a real philosopher, not a two-bit populist novel writer. Philosophy can be, and was difficult but well-written. And Literature can be, and was more like the creative genius of poetry.

 

[derek]

I was just thinking about this today. Bizarre.

I'd tend to agree, up to a certain point. I think cross-over is ok, but something is most definately lost when they are thrust upon each other into some bastard form.

 

[speed]

I was just thinking about this today. Bizarre.

I'd tend to agree, up to a certain point. I think cross-over is ok, but something is most definately lost when they are thrust upon each other into some bastard form.

Inevitably there is going to be some crossover in both fields. But, generally if one notices, in the great works, the amount of influence on either the literature or philosophy, is entirely secondary and merely augments the book or argument.

 

[derek]

Inevitably there is going to be some crossover in both fields. But, generally if one notices, in the great works, the amount of influence on either the literature or philosophy, is entirely secondary and merely augments the book or argument.

So you're saying that something is lost when one pretends to be the other? Or when it's primary aim is to be something else? Or am I just confused?

 

[speed]

So you're saying that something is lost when one pretends to be the other? Or when it's primary aim is to be something else? Or am I just confused?

I'm stating that my argument, like almost all arguments, is not absolute: great philosophy can have literary influences, and vice versa; and in the rarest of cases (Im thinking of Dostoevsky, with his Orthodox Christian existentialism, and at times Camus, and even his primary literary influence: Andre Gide and his homoerotic but well-written conquering Nietszcheasm) it can be a philosophical novel that is both a quality literary work and a well-reasoned philosophy. But this is ridiculously rare.

So, my point was the damage such novels written by philosophers or regular writers have on not only philosophy, but especially literature.

 

[Cythraul]

I'm not sure if this properly addresses any of the concerns expressed thus far, but whatev. I haven't read any fiction in a long time. When I used to actually read fiction I preferred Dostoevsky and Kafka primarily. One of the reasons these writers appealed to me was that the themes found within their writings were of a decidedly philosophical bent. When I'd read these works I felt like I was actually gaining some valuable insight into human nature and the world. Now I feel like I really want to believe that I'm getting some real insight from these works but at the same time I ask myself "Should I believe this?" That causes me to wonder about a couple of things. 1. What sort of insights could literature really give me that philosophy or other domains of inquiry can't, and could literature even be cognitive in that manner anyway? and 2. If literature and art in general are non-cognitive, that is, if one doesn't really gain any sort of genuine knowledge through said mediums then why do I value them so much? It seems that even if I acknowledged the fact that art is basically non-cognitive I would still value it, but I don't even know why. Art and the experiences that encounters with art engender seem like very mysterious things to me.

 

[speed]

I'm not sure if this properly addresses any of the concerns expressed thus far, but whatev. I haven't read any fiction in a long time. When I used to actually read fiction I preferred Dostoevsky and Kafka primarily. One of the reasons these writers appealed to me was that the themes found within their writings were of a decidedly philosophical bent. When I'd read these works I felt like I was actually gaining some valuable insight into human nature and the world. Now I feel like I really want to believe that I'm getting some real insight from these works but at the same time I ask myself "Should I believe this?" That causes me to wonder about a couple of things. 1. What sort of insights could literature really give me that philosophy or other domains of inquiry can't, and could literature even be cognitive in that manner anyway? and 2. If literature and art in general are non-cognitive, that is, if one doesn't really gain any sort of genuine knowledge through said mediums then why do I value them so much? It seems that even if I acknowledged the fact that art is basically non-cognitive I would still value it, but I don't even know why. Art and the experiences that encounters with art engender seem like very mysterious things to me.

I think you understand my point without really stating it. You have a feeling of awe with art, but dont understand why. Allow me:

Classic Novels, and to my mind influential philosophy, are about, and to be appreciated for their pure inspiration--genius, experiencing another world, this whirlwind of inspired creative genius; overcoming the common place and practical. They are, indeed, in many ways, luxuries that have no practical purpose. Such inspiration and creative genius can be found in art, literature, pure science, and music. Such inspiration can be found in the recently discussed idea of Dasein (what inspiration to think of such a thing), and thus all of Philosophy (Philosophy requires inspiration; a new creative idea; a new individual world). And I suppose, there is some inspiration somewhere in analytical philosophy (wittgenstein sure had it); although I dont see many examples, hehe.

I think these points, are pretty much the most important things Ive stated my whole time on this board. And I know many of us on this board, are creative persons: artists, poets, writers, scientists, hell, even computer programmers, who should understand this.

 

[Cythraul]

Classic Novels, and to my mind influential philosophy, are about, and to be appreciated for their pure inspiration--genius, experiencing another world, this whirlwind of inspired creative genius; overcoming the common place and practical.

Why? I can certainly see how this applies to art, but how is it supposed to have any significant place in philosophy? Sure, I certainly can sit there and marvel at the inspired creative genius of a certain philosophical text or the utterly transcendant experience it engenders in me, but that's not why I study philosophy. I study philosophy to understand certain things better, and I definitely don't study philosophy to overcome "the commonplace and practical". In fact, it has nothing to do with some such distinction between the commonplace and its opposite. It does however have a whole lot to do with understanding and solving issues of philosophical importance. Philosophy is assertoric; it makes claims and arguments, that is its business. It's quite another matter if it just so happens to make you wet your pants in the presence of its monumental brilliance. So, given that I don't in fact accept your characterization of what philosophy is all about, could you give me any good reasons why I should accept your characterization?

They are, indeed, in many ways, luxuries that have no practical purpose. Such inspiration and creative genius can be found in art, literature, pure science, and music. Such inspiration can be found in the recently discussed idea of Dasein (what inspiration to think of such a thing), and thus all of Philosophy (Philosophy requires inspiration; a new creative idea; a new individual world). And I suppose, there is some inspiration somewhere in analytical philosophy (wittgenstein sure had it); although I dont see many examples, hehe.

Ok, so I don't even accept your position on what is interesting about philosophy, nor do I accept your position regarding what is valuable about it. So it just seems to me that the above remarks are just unimportant. It's one thing for a work of philosophy to be impressive in the sense that it's inspired or impressive in some "aesthetic" manner, but it's an entirely different thing for that work to make true claims, and be worthwhile qua philosophy. And you just had to take another opportunity to disparage analytic philosophy. I have two things to say about this. 1) Creative geniuses and astounding, unprecedented ideas and creations are pretty rare in every domain, and 2) At any rate, it's simply not true that so-called inspiration is extremely rare in the analytic domain compared to other domains, and anyway this alleged lack of inspiration in analytic philosophy is supposed to be contrasted with what? Actually, it just doesn't matter since analytic philosophers are generally concerned with taking small, careful steps in their handling of issues for distinctly methodological reasons which are in fact good reasons, and while they do detract from progress on issues in certain ways occasionally, it's certainly not so bad when you're concerned with getting good philosophical results. So, it's hardly an insult to be accused of not displaying so much incredible "inspiration".

edit: and what is the point of making these distinctions anyway? Good philosophy is good philosophy, and shit philosophy is shit philosophy. That's all there is to it. I think I am rambling. Sorry. Bye.

edit # 2: I apologize if I have drastically misconstrued your point but I am tired. I really should stop arguing about this metaphilosophical crap all the time but I feel like I constantly need to be on the defensive in the face of everybody and their allegedly more profound concerns. Bye again.

 

[speed]

Why? I can certainly see how this applies to art, but how is it supposed to have any significant place in philosophy? Sure, I certainly can sit there and marvel at the inspired creative genius of a certain philosophical text or the utterly transcendant experience it engenders in me, but that's not why I study philosophy. I study philosophy to understand certain things better, and I definitely don't study philosophy to overcome "the commonplace and practical". In fact, it has nothing to do with some such distinction between the commonplace and its opposite. It does however have a whole lot to do with understanding and solving issues of philosophical importance. Philosophy is assertoric; it makes claims and arguments, that is its business. It's quite another matter if it just so happens to make you wet your pants in the presence of its monumental brilliance. So, given that I don't in fact accept your characterization of what philosophy is all about, could you give me any good reasons why I should accept your characterization?



Ok, so I don't even accept your position on what is interesting about philosophy, nor do I accept your position regarding what is valuable about it. So it just seems to me that the above remarks are just unimportant. It's one thing for a work of philosophy to be impressive in the sense that it's inspired or impressive in some "aesthetic" manner, but it's an entirely different thing for that work to make true claims, and be worthwhile qua philosophy. And you just had to take another opportunity to disparage analytic philosophy. I have two things to say about this. 1) Creative geniuses and astounding, unprecedented ideas and creations are pretty rare in every domain, and 2) At any rate, it's simply not true that so-called inspiration is extremely rare in the analytic domain compared to other domains, and anyway this alleged lack of inspiration in analytic philosophy is supposed to be contrasted with what? Actually, it just doesn't matter since analytic philosophers are generally concerned with taking small, careful steps in their handling of issues for distinctly methodological reasons which are in fact good reasons, and while they do detract from progress on issues in certain ways occasionally, it's certainly not so bad when you're concerned with getting good philosophical results. So, it's hardly an insult to be accused of not displaying so much incredible "inspiration".

edit: and what is the point of making these distinctions anyway? Good philosophy is good philosophy, and shit philosophy is shit philosophy. That's all there is to it. I think I am rambling. Sorry. Bye.

edit # 2: I apologize if I have drastically misconstrued your point but I am tired. I really should stop arguing about this metaphilosophical crap all the time but I feel like I constantly need to be on the defensive in the face of everybody and their allegedly more profound concerns. Bye again.

Yes, I think you really, really, miscontrued my points, and I was joking with you about analytical philosophy. I used a hehe, correct? Perhaps a wink would be better. I was making a cliched argument (you know, thats the supposed complaint placed on analytical philosophy), that I thought you'd chuckle at, and possibly address. In fact, i have no idea of how you came to the points you made. I suppose my post, was not as straightforward, or comprehensible as i originally imagined.

You've taken a bizarre route of logic here, and my point about the practical and commonplace, was one to show how all of these things--philosophy, art, literature, pure science--have no applied or practical use in the world. And two, to show how such inspired persons engaged in these fields, thus do not have practical aims.

Also, I did not mention why you study philosophy, or why you should; or what makes good philosophy or bad, or any of that nonsense. My point was really about how or why the great, and even the second-rate but interesting, ideas that are the backbone (of art, music, philosophy) are brought about with almost theurgic fits of transcendent or inspired creation. And to show how the great ideas, that great philosophers spend so much time backing up etc,are inspired or totally creative ideas. You can disagree, and state that no, great philosopher dont need fits of trascendental or creative inspiration to build their ideas upon.

So, its about the creative act that is essential in philosophy; not why one is attracted to it,etc.

 

[Cythraul]

Yeah, I misunderstood you. I guess there's not enough there for me to disagree with in order to make a very interesting post so I'll leave it at this.

 

[ARC150]

It seems most persons in the world today, derive their philosophical knowledge and understanding from philosophical novels...[et cetera]...Literature can be, and was more like the creative genius of poetry.

Agreed and agreed.

I am torn as to how to respond to this - not by virute of uncertainty or vacillation regarding the viewpoints, but because there are so many avenues by which to approach the support of these (read: speed's) ideas...

That said, I offer the following (albeit blunt) categorization of stories rooted in philosophical ideas:

1) The story inspired by a given philosophical treatise
2) The story explaining a given philosophical treatise
3) The story expounding a given philosophical treatise

The first category of literature, I fully support in idea and practice. Of the mentioned scribes (within the entirety of this thread), I offer up Kafka:
To my mind, this author set out to create a mood or idea; this creation may have been inspired by certain philosophies, but it's Alpha and Omega is a story in and to itself. The inspiration may have just as easily come from a piece of philosophical literature as from an interesting conversation, a period of musing over some-said observation, or a dream that the author had. In the end though, the story is a story...as all stories should be. The Reader, by reading the work, garners his own insight - based on the ideas and/or images the author puts forth. The work is inherently an expression of the author's thoughts rather than an exposition of some one else's thoughts.

The second category is, to my mind, an abhorrent misuse of the written language. The "explanation" is a bastardization of the original thought, along the edict of "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story." Drawing again from this thread, I offer Ayn Rand - although I imagine there are many who would disagree with this, I think such writing is criminal in its blurring of well-founded ideas. Greater ideas are warped and bent to support unsubstantiated viewpoints; this is tantamount to banal rhetoric.

Most unsavory and, I think, the crux of the initial thread-statement, is the third category - A written work that puts forth an idea but focuses on the story incorporating the idea rather than the idea itself. This brings to bear the difference between solid philosphical thought and unfounded philosophic-esque ideas. True philosophy holds itself to standards of exposition in the way that true science holds itself to standards of method. A given philosophical conclusion recognizes the need for an exhaustive methodology to support its claims. By comparison, many pop-philo authors (Neal Walsch comes screaming to mind) are less interested in support of their statements then they are with pushing onto the Reader their ideas.